Corporate funding of research results in a researcher bias that produces data that panders to corporate interests. This skewed and sometimes falsified data can lead to all sorts of problems regarding sustainability and the health of both people as well as the environment.
Research, especially that conducted in the collegiate sector, is supposed to be the engine that drives change and advancement. It is especially charged with being the primary mode with which we make ourselves and our society better. It is also one of the larger obstacles to sustainability in our modern world. Research funding more specifically is a large cog in the matrix of unsustainability that is sapping the life out of our planet every day.
A Hint of Corporate Bias
The problem with research funding isn’t necessarily the institution itself, indeed society has relied on outside benefactors to sponsor science for quite some time, but simply where the large majority of the money now comes from. The majority of funds in important research sectors such as medical research and energy research come from corporations who have a very strong vested interest in the results of the research. Indeed, governmental funding of energy research has dropped to $3.6 billion dollars per year, a far cry from the $9 billion that the government contributed in 1979 by almost 60% (Washburn). Meanwhile, corporations are increasing the quantity of money they make available in grants by leaps and bounds, especially in the past few years.
What does this mean for sustainability? For one, it allows research to more easily ignore one of the largest stakeholders in the issue, the general public. Since research is no longer dependent on the government, charged with looking out for the public good, what the public needs and would be best served by is no longer the priority. Rather more researchers tend to focus on producing results and technologies that pander to corporate sponsors. Multiple studies have found that corporately sponsored research projects can be anywhere from 1.5 to 3.5 times more likely to produce an industry friendly result (Chimonas)(Miles). This can be attributed to many things, including restrictions placed on researchers by industry causing the researchers to lose autonomy, researcher desire to placate the entity that is keeping them afloat, or even just a subconscious bias towards a sponsor (Washburn). A huge part of the problem may be that researchers don’t realize they are biased. One study showed that 61% of drug researchers are confident that they have not been biased in their research due to corporate funding, but only 16% were equally confident about the rest of their field (Stemwedel).
Such a bias is a major problem because it not only curtails the ability to fight environmental problems by stunting research into the necessary fields, but it also affords corporations, another large stakeholder, even more control over our society. It allows them to suppress findings and data, as well as obtain somewhat shady scientific proof that may contradict accepted scientific fact. One of the more egregious “findings” that has occurred is a study that claimed “80 percent of lung cancer deaths could be prevented through widespread use of CT scans” (Medical Research Funding). In a study of 10 research partnerships between prominent universities with energy research programs and “Big Oil” companies, it was found that none adhered to the federally recommended 60 day publication window, with most of the arrangements allowing the corporations involved to substantially delay publication, sometimes by more than a year (Washburn). These two key aspects of the current system allow corporations to effectively silence and combat research that would otherwise advance the industry, but hurt their bottom line. This is especially a sustainability problem when it comes to the pharmaceutical and energy industries. The former results in ineffective and sometimes dangerous drugs with unknown side effects making it to market while the latter results in continued dependence on fossil fuels and further energy inefficiencies leading to slower ability to correct environmental destruction.
A Simple Solution
There are a few ways that may be able to fix this problem. One is an increase in government funding for research. This would undermine the control that corporations have over researchers and allow some of their loyalties return to the public. Perhaps a more surefire approach, however, would be to mandate peer review of research objectives (Martin). This would allow for the decision about what is researched and how to be checked by those who do not hold a stake in the process. This would allow some separation between researchers and corporations, lessening the pressure for researchers to produce positive results for a company just because they are footing the research bill.
"Peer Review | World Association of Young Scientists." World Association of Young Scientists | Science, Remixed. 14 Mar. 2010. Web. 25 Oct. 2010. <http://ways.org/en/topics/peer_review>.
Chimonas, Susan, Nancy Chen, Erin Bassett-Novoa, Patrick Moynihan, and David Rothman. "Does Industry Support Bias Research? Funding Source and Outcome in Cardiovascular Device Trials Authored by Chimonas, Susan., Chen, Nancy., Bassett-Novoa, Eric., Moynihan, Patrick. and Rothman, David." All Academic Inc. (Abstract Management, Conference Management and Research Search Engine). 16 Jan. 2007. Web. 26 Oct. 2010. <http://www.allacademic.commeta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/1/8/4/9/7/pages184976/p184976-1.php>.
Martin, Brian. "Research Grants: Problems and Options, by Brian Martin." Brian Martin. 2 Nov. 2000. Web. 25 Oct. 2010. <http://www.bmartin.cc/pubs/00aur.html>.
Corporate funding of research results in a researcher bias that produces data that panders to corporate interests. This skewed and sometimes falsified data can lead to all sorts of problems regarding sustainability and the health of both people as well as the environment.
Unsustainable Research: Solving Tomorrow’s Problems Today
Research, especially that conducted in the collegiate sector, is supposed to be the engine that drives change and advancement. It is especially charged with being the primary mode with which we make ourselves and our society better. It is also one of the larger obstacles to sustainability in our modern world. Research funding more specifically is a large cog in the matrix of unsustainability that is sapping the life out of our planet every day.
A Hint of Corporate Bias
The problem with research funding isn’t necessarily the institution itself, indeed society has relied on outside benefactors to sponsor science for quite some time, but simply where the large majority of the money now comes from. The majority of funds in important research sectors such as medical research and energy research come from corporations who have a very strong vested interest in the results of the research. Indeed, governmental funding of energy research has dropped to $3.6 billion dollars per year, a far cry from the $9 billion that the government contributed in 1979 by almost 60% (Washburn). Meanwhile, corporations are increasing the quantity of money they make available in grants by leaps and bounds, especially in the past few years.
What does this mean for sustainability? For one, it allows research to more easily ignore one of the largest stakeholders in the issue, the general public. Since research is no longer dependent on the government, charged with looking out for the public good, what the public needs and would be best served by is no longer the priority. Rather more researchers tend to focus on producing results and technologies that pander to corporate sponsors. Multiple studies have found that corporately sponsored research projects can be anywhere from 1.5 to 3.5 times more likely to produce an industry friendly result (Chimonas)(Miles). This can be attributed to many things, including restrictions placed on researchers by industry causing the researchers to lose autonomy, researcher desire to placate the entity that is keeping them afloat, or even just a subconscious bias towards a sponsor (Washburn). A huge part of the problem may be that researchers don’t realize they are biased. One study showed that 61% of drug researchers are confident that they have not been biased in their research due to corporate funding, but only 16% were equally confident about the rest of their field (Stemwedel).
Such a bias is a major problem because it not only curtails the ability to fight environmental problems by stunting research into the necessary fields, but it also affords corporations, another large stakeholder, even more control over our society. It allows them to suppress findings and data, as well as obtain somewhat shady scientific proof that may contradict accepted scientific fact. One of the more egregious “findings” that has occurred is a study that claimed “80 percent of lung cancer deaths could be prevented through widespread use of CT scans” (Medical Research Funding). In a study of 10 research partnerships between prominent universities with energy research programs and “Big Oil” companies, it was found that none adhered to the federally recommended 60 day publication window, with most of the arrangements allowing the corporations involved to substantially delay publication, sometimes by more than a year (Washburn). These two key aspects of the current system allow corporations to effectively silence and combat research that would otherwise advance the industry, but hurt their bottom line. This is especially a sustainability problem when it comes to the pharmaceutical and energy industries. The former results in ineffective and sometimes dangerous drugs with unknown side effects making it to market while the latter results in continued dependence on fossil fuels and further energy inefficiencies leading to slower ability to correct environmental destruction.
A Simple Solution
There are a few ways that may be able to fix this problem. One is an increase in government funding for research. This would undermine the control that corporations have over researchers and allow some of their loyalties return to the public. Perhaps a more surefire approach, however, would be to mandate peer review of research objectives (Martin). This would allow for the decision about what is researched and how to be checked by those who do not hold a stake in the process. This would allow some separation between researchers and corporations, lessening the pressure for researchers to produce positive results for a company just because they are footing the research bill.
Collage References:
Markey, Ed. "Waking America From the BP Nightmare." Breaking News and Opinion on The Huffington Post. 15 June 2010. Web. 25 Oct. 2010. <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-ed-markey/waking-america-from-the-b_b_613161.html>.
"Peer Review | World Association of Young Scientists." World Association of Young Scientists | Science, Remixed. 14 Mar. 2010. Web. 25 Oct. 2010. <http://ways.org/en/topics/peer_review>.
"Researching Cartoons and Comics." CartoonStock - Cartoon Pictures, Political Cartoons, Animations. Web. 26 Oct. 2010. <http://www.cartoonstock.com/directory/r/researching.asp>.
Shams, Elias. "The Three Musketiers from the Congress Urging FCC on Net-Neutrality." Awesome DC. 19 Aug. 2010. Web. 26 Oct. 2010. <http://awesomedc.com/category/tech/web-tech/page/2/>.
Wolfson, Hannah. "UAB Hits Record in Research Funding | Al.com." Blogs - Al.com. 16 Mar. 2010. Web. 26 Oct. 2010. <http://blog.al.com/spotnews/2010/03/uab_hits_record_in_research_fu.html>.
Other References:
Chimonas, Susan, Nancy Chen, Erin Bassett-Novoa, Patrick Moynihan, and David Rothman. "Does Industry Support Bias Research? Funding Source and Outcome in Cardiovascular Device Trials Authored by Chimonas, Susan., Chen, Nancy., Bassett-Novoa, Eric., Moynihan, Patrick. and Rothman, David." All Academic Inc. (Abstract Management, Conference Management and Research Search Engine). 16 Jan. 2007. Web. 26 Oct. 2010. <http://www.allacademic.commeta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/1/8/4/9/7/pages184976/p184976-1.php>.
Miles, Steven. "Funding by big pharma does bias research". OB/GYN News. FindArticles.com. 25 Oct, 2010. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0CYD/is_3_44/ai_n31414586/
Martin, Brian. "Research Grants: Problems and Options, by Brian Martin." Brian Martin. 2 Nov. 2000. Web. 25 Oct. 2010. <http://www.bmartin.cc/pubs/00aur.html>.
"Sources of Medical Research Funding." Medical Progress Today. 24 Apr. 2008. Web. 25 Oct. 2010. <http://www.medicalprogresstoday.com/second_opinion/second_opinion_04-24-08.php>.
Stemwedel, Janet. "Sniffing out Bias in a Sea of Industry Research Funding. : Adventures in Ethics and Science." ScienceBlogs. 11 Apr. 2009. Web. 25 Oct. 2010. <http://scienceblogs.com/ethicsandscience/2009/04/sniffing_out_bias_in_a_sea_of.php>.
Washburn, Jennifer. "Big Oil Goes to College." Center for American Progress//. 14 Oct. 2010. Web. 26 Oct. 2010. <http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2010/06/big_oil.html>.
Supporting Links:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/26/health/research/26lung.html?_r=3&hp=&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1206548125-Y2bEBu98HQ1q42OWIgYcvA&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin
http://www.aeaweb.org/aer/data_availability_policy.html
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2010/10/pdf/big_oil_lf.pdf